🚀 go-pugleaf

Chris Lynch wrote:

> I would like to say i am not the press or an expert in the sense of your
> note but...
 
I never claimed you were.

You pointed out, that you have a habit of generalizing viewpoints.  I
simply responded to your message, narrowing the focus of the viewpoint
in contention and providing some additional information.  As you may
have read in my response, I did agree to some of your assesments, but
not entirely.
 
> Efficiency varies in the situations that the computers are used, for
> instance: UNIX based systems are very excellent when it comes to
> networking and other types of administration, but what happens when you
> try to facilitate one of these systems for graphics work. Wait... what
> programs would you use, where is the third party support...(this is only
> an illustration of a situation, not a viewpoint. I am well aware that
> many programs are being ported to UNIX (and LINUX, and xWindows etc...))

Again, its a matter of context and whether we are talking past or
present capabilities of the platform.

You're context is based on personal computers that can run UNIX (or
variation thereof) today.  Fine.  PCs have more computational power and
efficiency than mainframes and minis of the past (circa 1985 and
before).  The scope I'm referring to is limited to personal computers. 
Not mainframes, not minis, not workstations. 

Please point out, circa 1985, another *PERSONAL COMPUTER* that performed
pre-emptive multitasking with a low powered CPU and less than 1 MB of
RAM.  Please point out a *PERSONAL COMPUTER* that can do this today.

> I am in no way arguing the fact that the the Amiga was a multasking
> system while others were not, My point is that the way a user
> incorporates a system into his or her work and how well that system is
> suited for that type of work defines the level of efficiency for that
> machine. I do not believe that you can make a case such as yours based
> off of the multitasking argument. The Amiga did preform nicely with the
> software that was available. I personally used (sometimes still do) Ad
> Pro, T-Rexx Pro and the Toaster. Still these programs (with the
> exception of T-REXX) lost ground quickly when other platforms began this
> type of support. And with the implemtation of c, c++, basic, pascal, and
> now Java. A person with a little knowledge and imagination could
> accomplish a great deal. T-REXX was merely a scripting language (albeit
> a really cool one), It aided substantially, though, in one of the few
> benefits that the Amiga had over other other systems. The problem was
> that the programs were, quite often, inferior to the competitions
> counterparts. So no matter how efficent they worked with the Amiga, they
> were still inferior to the competition(in many cases).

OK, so the only argument we have here is based on time.  Sure, TODAY
there are superior OSes, hardware and software that can outdo the
Amiga.  However, if we placed this in 1989, you cannot justify the above
statement.  Again, I'm just trying to narrow the focus of the argument. 
If you're still using Amiga hardware and software, then you have to
admit, its still a good tool and has lasted the test of time.  Right?
 
> Yes the 68000 processors were good, but there were better processors
> out. The strong usually survives. When Apple switched over to the 601
> processors, this was to take the computers to a new level of competition
> with the Intel style processors. Apple found a way, Commodore aparently
> didn't.

Oh, come on Chris!  You know full well that Apple has failed to harness
the full potential of the PowerPC.  Hence the position they are in
technologically and now effected market share.  As to Commodore, well it
was the biggest blessing/curse the Amiga ever had.
 
> Yes the Amiga's true gold star was the NTSC thing. The Toaster (I worked
> on the Toaster 1.0 to the 4.0) was a truely innovative and inspirational
> piece of work. It did truly change the video market and take thinking to
> a new level on the quality that someone could output on a small budget.
> Still it was a little closer to $10,000 for the turnkey ( that is if you
> wanted a hard drive, RAM, NTSC Monitors, TBC's and VCRs to input and
> output from.(Not to mention the camera!))  :-)

My concept of a turnkey was delivery of the computer components.  This
did not include "accessories" as you have mentioned. :)

Geez, where did you get your Amigas?  I was selling A2000/030 Toaster
2.0 systems with 7 MB of RAM (4 MB 32-bit RAM on the A2030 CPU card and
2 MB 16-bit RAM on the A2091 SCSI controller), 250 MB Quantum SCSI hard
drive, 1084S monitor and 44 MB SyQuest for $4,000 back in 1990.  No, we
didn't make much profit on the hardware.  We made it up in training and
annual maintenance agreements! :)

> As a final note, you have made me think deeper about some of my
> reasoning behind my views. And maybe helped influence my annoying habit
> of how I generalize viewpoints :).  Thanks for the input.

Again, its the context and timeline I disagreed with.  That and your
generalizing habit. :)

-- 

Regards,

John Chang
____

John Chang, Technical Support Engineer, Scala, Inc. Europe
"Multimedia by SCALA.  Jump to IT!" Scala Computer Television
EMail: john.chang@scala.no  Website: http://www.scala.com